Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kosta

Short review after 1 day of usage

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

This topic seems to be out of hand. There will be red tape in every industry, come on, really! we should all be concerned about the end-user side of the product unless you are a training lawyer wanting to pick the EULA to pieces and scour the forum for breaches. There are alot of opinions in this topic but one that I think is valid is this: I don't think LM would check mate themselves or other companies for a quick buck! It's a business and John has been clear about their vision for the product and its longevitiy all along (if you have read all posts like me starting from the ones posted at Mycockpit.org). Let's use what is intended to be a more professional and stable flight trainer and get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all: this topic is from September 2011!2nd of all, it all still stands and is being worked on.

Share this post


Link to post
Why?
Because this EULA topic has been beat to death, that's why!

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,What does the EULA Topic have to do with this tread?. The topic heading is called "Short review after 1 day of use" and has NOTHING to do with P3D's EULA. You may find one or two individuals that keep bringing up the EULA, if we were to delete topics that have strayed off topic because of one or two individuals, eighty percent plus of AVSIM's forum discussions would be deleted if the staff took on your way of thinking.

Somebody delete this topic!!
Because this EULA topic has been beat to death, that's why!

Share this post


Link to post

HI All, I am posting here as posting on the LM website is frowned upon unless you are giving high praise to one and all who are going to transform and finally finish the last installment from the MSFS series. I have used the P3D download for 2 weeks now trying to be very objective abt comparsions to it and FSX , which is a real no no to ask abt on the P3D website. I do not know why that is the case but I was scolded by the little attack dog named John and was labeled a "gamer' and to basically take my questions elsewhere to the appropriate "gamer" website when asking a few questions about the 2 sims.. The P3D website is for developers and if you are not one of them it seems that the powers that be on that website demand you keep your mouth shut and pay your monthly dues. I would submit that we are all "developers" in one sense or another when it comes to Flight Simulation. I do not recall seeing any scoreboard listings about who is ahead in any categories that FSX keeps track of. Most all who fly FSX are very committed to learning and understandinga fascinating field of endeavor that unfortunately I will never be able to do except via the computer. Most of us and that includes me, are trying to "develope" the best computer hardware together with the multitudes of addons that are available, and confiqure them as such to give the best performance and pass on the successes to the rest of the community for their benefit without asking for $10 a month. Naturally, when people who are trying to make a living offering addons that those of us cannot create ourselves,we are very happy to pay the price of admission for these addons. Do I think there is a positive potential for P3D? Yes I do. But based on what I have experienced so far as to performance vs FSX,I am not impressed at all. In fact the opposite is really the truth for me. Using version 1.2 with updates on the horizon is really a positive. Just thinking that someone out there is in the process of taking the last addition of MSFS and going to make it "right " is something I think the whole community is behind. But the fact that version 1.2 still crashes when you exit the "game", should not even be a point of contention right now, and the fact that P3D cannot even get the color of the snow right when that was not even a problem in FSX shows I think that this program is not ready for "primetime" and charging money with all the promises of saying 64 bit down the road, is just stringing people along. Especially when even P3D laments in their own replies that "there is millions of lines of code to go thru just to make 64 bit happen". I am going to step away from P3D at this point and let them continue with all the "developers" to get P3D functional. Let them use their own resources to develope the product they are promising and when that happens, this "gamer" may consider P3D again. There is just to much to do and to many addons to "mickey mouse " over from FSX to P3D to consider to make it even equal to where I have FSX running presently. I will gladly pay the license fees for REX, PMDG, etc to do it all over again if P3D proves itself as a upgrade from where this "gamer" is now with FSX. Just the fact that in P3D's help section there is a section for tuning P3D based on and I will try to be careful here, Config file tweaks, that I thought would have mostly been rendered moot with the release of the latest hardware, but especially with P3D having touted the fact that they have altered code and the like to enhance and get rid of the the FSX problems, so why do you still need the config. hacks? Oops, sorry. Let the developers foot the bill as that is the core audience that P3D is playing to and call me when "dinner is ready" Skip Ciman

Share this post


Link to post

I just happen to have a brand new computer with a fresh Windows 7 install so I'm taking the trouble to benchmark FSX Acceleration vs. P3D.I've set up an autopiloted 25 min. flight @ 1000 ft. in the default King Air 350 starting at on approach to KJFK RW 4R, circling KJFK, heading towards La Guardia, then Central Park, shaving roof off skyscrapers over MIdtown and Downtown, circle Statue of LIberty, back to Central Park, circle Central Park, then return to KJFK and circkel the KJFK terminals one more time.Each flight is done with a freshly booted Windows 7. The computer (2700K, 16GB RAM, Fast SSDs and NVidia GTX 580) runs everything up to date in terms of Windows and drivers. No overcklocing or BIOS tweaks. The only software that has been installed is 3D Mark Vantage and a few other benchmark and stability testing software - To be 100% sure the computer has no driver or hardware errors.I run everything maxxed out - every slider. In P3D I rund 1024 textures and have disabled bathimery (or whatever it's called :) ). There are some sliders missing in Prepar3D compared to FSX, so the comparison is not 100% scientific. I have added the average fps count to the cfg's and take 12 measurements. Each measurement representing the lowest average fps I got f.ex. circling KJFK terminals. I've done each flight twice in both sims and there are slight variations on fps in each flight, but usually it is less than 1 fps difference.The result: FSX runs on average 0,5-1 fps faster on my system than P3D. FSX average for the flight is 9 fps, while P3D is just above 8 fps.Tonight I'm going to set up a flight in the Alps or Seattle and make the same kind of test there. Good region for testing water, mesh, urban and rural/forest areas in one flight.

Share this post


Link to post